Oh dear! It's much too late, I've had a tough day doing company year-end paperwork and I really ought to be cuddling the missus in bed, but I did promise, so here it is...
I oppose the motion that: “Punishment causes fear and as such has no place in the training of horses”. It is my contention that this belief, although, on the surface, apparently beneficial to horses, is, on the contrary, frequently a cause of some of their greatest difficulties.
Communication with other beings, whether human, equine (or extra-terrestrial, for that matter
) is based on establishing some form of common language. Since any language is only useful if a common set of meanings can be agreed upon, in written languages, such as English, the convention is to refer to the dictionary in times of uncertainty or dispute.
Accordingly, I have chosen to begin my rebuttal by referring to the Collins Softback English Dictionary - not only is it the fattest one on my bookshelf, it's also “The authority on current English”, according its modest front cover
. On reading the listed definitions of “punishment” we find the following; (1) A penalty or sanction given for any offence (2) the act of punishing or state of being punished (3) (informal) rough treatment (4) (psychol)
any aversive stimulus administered to an organism as part of training. A further investigation of
aversive reveals;
tending to dissuade or repel.
Clearly then, whether we as individuals feel comfortable with the idea or not, according to our highest linguistic authority, any stimulus applied in the course of training, whether by means of a whip, voice, gesture, or any other means, which has the tendency of dissuading the horse from repeating a course of action is
punishment by definition.
Now, an example of such use of
aversive stimulus would include having the horse move backward one step should it fail to respect our (arbitrarily) defined “personal space”. The definition would apply whether the horse were persuaded to move by use of a Dually, whip, gestures made by the handler, even a pre-trained voice command or clicker. I humbly submit, therefore, that punishment, as defined in the English language is an
essential part of training. Furthermore, neglecting to enforce compliance to the punishment, as in this example, could well be the beginning of a much more serious difficulty.
This point made, it is also worth reflecting on the informal usage of “punishment” indicating “
rough treatment”, which I suspect is the source of many people’s discomfort at the use of the term. I would like to make it clear that I do not for one instant condone unnecessarily rough treatment of a horse (or indeed a human) as a means to achieve a training outcome. With this in mind, I submit that not only is punishment an essential part of training, it actually works best when it is administered and regulated by the horse himself – for example in creating tension around his own nose when overstepping the boundary set by a handler using a Dually.
This example, provided the handler waits patiently for the horse to try different behavioural options to “free”
himself from the pressure, also refutes the proposer’s suggestion that “punishment does not offer choice or alternative”. On the contrary, I submit that the horse, like humans, learns most effectively when presented with a “question” and allowed time and space to work out the answer
in his own way. True education is, after all, the process of “drawing out” rather than “putting in”. While there is every benefit to be gained from offering “helpful hints” along the way, the most learning is achieved when the student is the one who ultimately solves the puzzle.
As to whether punishment is “
intended to be unpleasant”, I must confess it is difficult to imagine how anyone could be
dissuaded from repeating a behaviour or course of action (which presumably seemed attractive beforehand) without the consequence being unpleasant. One might put forward the argument that introducing a specific alternative behaviour and rewarding the horse for carrying it out would avoid the issue of “unpleasantness”, but surely that conflicts directly with the proposer’s desire to see “
choice and alternatives”.
If we now turn to “fear” the second element of the proposition, again the proposer offers us a rather narrow definition. According to Collins; fear is (1) a feeling of distress, apprehension or alarm caused by impending danger or pain, (2) a cause of this feeling (fear of fear itself!), (3) awe or reverence, (4) concern, anxiety.
The implication in the proposition that “fear has no place in training“ is, I humbly submit, short sighted. I noted with intertest that LizP conceded this point already in her own arguments.
While I certainly agree that the early stages of skill acquisition are best done in an atmosphere of calm, safety and curiosity, the statement that fear has “
no place in training” cannot be considered useful if the highest levels of trust and partnership are to be developed. To cite one example, “Stockholm Syndrome” is a phenomenon whereby hostages who succesfully emerge from a highly stressful (almost certainly fearful) experience form a strong bond with one another and in some cases, are even drawn to form relationships with their former captors. As a second, Noam Chomsky explained how language (including the tactile “language of the aids”) is “driven deeper into the mind” by the successful negotiation of an emotionally stressful experience by two or more partners. Even Neitze said “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”. Come to think of it, he also said, “Nobody controls their own life. The best you can do is choose to be controlled by good people”, but then, Neitze wasn’t exactly an optimist!
Since horses are natural prey animals, if sufficiently startled, the horse will take flight. Though I sincerely hope that anyone reading this should never be put to the test, should such a situation occur when the the reader is in the saddle, stopping or directing a horse in a highly emotional state will depend very largely upon the degree to which the “language of the aids” is trusted or accepted by the horse.
On another, perhaps simpler, level is the issue of a “dangerous” horse who has no respect for human “personal space”, particularly if said horse is on his “last chance” for the duration of the RA’s visit. In such a case the handler may have no safe alternative but to teach the horse “respect and awe” for the human via Dually, stick or other training aid. While this should not be a daily ritual, I would again submit that the proposition that fear has “NO” place in training is perhaps well-meaning but ultimately misguided.
In closing, I would like to point out that I do agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of LizP’s submission. The successful use of fear and punishment as training tools requires that they be
completely seperated from any emotional involvement on the part of the rider or handler. On occasions I have seen people beat horses with implements ranging from fists to sticks. In most of these situations the action appeared to be no more or less than a venting of the rider/handler’s unresolved negative emotions (anger, frustrations, embarrassment, etc), rather than any reasoned and emotion-free attempt at modifying the horse’s future behaviour.
I would like to propose an alternative, more empowering belief however. It is my belief that successful and ethical training of horses is a complex psychological dance in which the use of physical aids (natural or artificial) plays only a small part. The challenge for us all as riders, trainers or ground-handlers is to
develop our understanding of ourselves to the point where we can work with the
authentic horse from an emotionally detached position. To do this requires us to at least notice, if not understand, the
projections we make of our own hopes, fears and limitations.
As humans, we all make neuro-associations all of the time. In fact we cannot not do it. In my original post accepting the role of 1st opposer, I invited anyone who noticed an emotional reaction toward me at that time to take note. It is likely that we have never met, though you may have read some of my postings from time to time. Nevertheless, you may have formed an opinion of me, my beliefs, personality, training methods, horses, perhaps even my life and future prospects all based on your imaginary “projection” of how (or what) you think I am. Please notice now that
none of that is real. It is all an imaginary projection.
The way we interpret the outside world and all the people (and horses!) in it is coloured by the beliefs, attitudes and assumptions which we carry around with us. Unfortunately, most of us have grown up in a culture which believes that these are the real "us" and not simply beliefs which we decided consciously or unconsciously to adopt at some point - probably without really evaluating them carefully.
In opposing what I “assume”
will be a popular motion, I invite you to open your mind to the possibility that there are no absolutes. That there are positives and negatives in everything and that, by attempting to draw mental “lines in the sand” rather than think carefully, look deeper below the surface and ask taxing questions of ourselves, we truly do the horse and our fellow men and women a dis-service.
Respectfully submitted,
Derek Clark
Here are the rules
will be a popular motion, I invite you to open your mind to the possibility that there are no absolutes. That there are positives and negatives in everything and that, by attempting to draw mental “lines in the sand” rather than think carefully, look deeper below the surface and ask taxing questions of ourselves, we truly do the horse and our fellow men and women a dis-service.
